LaPierre Adresses UN

All and all a pretty good speech. However I would call your attwention to the emboldened phrases in the text. LaPierre seems to either intentionally or unintentionally blur the distinction between two very different things; civilian ownership of firearms and ownership of civilian firearms. The way I read parts of his address it sounds as if he is not objecting to a ban on civilian ownership of military style firearms. How do you all read it? Is laPierre willing to throw the right to own AK's and AR's, etc, under the bus?

NRA Delivers Remarks at U.N.
Concerning Proposed Arms Trade Treaty

National Rifle Association's Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre addressed the United Nations this afternoon. He told the U.N. to not interfere with the Second Amendment freedoms of Americans and pledged to continue the fight to preserve civilian ownership of firearms in the U.S. He said the NRA will oppose any U.N. provision that seeks to prohibit or regulate U.S. civilian firearm ownership. LaPierre said in his remarks, "The cornerstone of our freedom is the Second Amendment. Neither the United Nations, nor any other foreign influence, has the authority to meddle with the freedoms guaranteed by our Bill of Rights, endowed by our Creator, and due to all humankind."

United Nations Arms Trade Treaty

Preparatory Committee - 3d Session

New York, July 11-15, 2011

Statement of the National Rifle Association of America

Mr. Chairman, thank you for this brief opportunity to address the committee. I am Wayne LaPierre and for 20 years now, I have served as Executive Vice President of the National Rifle Association of America.

The NRA was founded in 1871, and ever since has staunchly defended the rights of its 4 million members, America's 80 million law-abiding gun owners, and freedom-loving Americans throughout our country. In 1996, the NRA was recognized as an NGO of the United Nations and, ever since then, has defended the constitutional freedom of Americans in this arena. The NRA is the largest and most active firearms rights organization in the world and, although some members of this committee may not like what I have to say, I am proud to defend the tens of millions of lawful people NRA represents.

This present effort for an Arms Trade Treaty, or ATT, is now in its fifth year. We have closely monitored this process with increasing concern. We've reviewed the statements of the countries participating in these meetings. We've listened to other NGOs and read their numerous proposals and reports, as well as carefully examined the papers you have produced. We've watched, and read ... listened and monitored. Now, we must speak out.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms in defense of self, family and country is ultimately self-evident and is part of the Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution. Reduced to its core, it is about fundamental individual freedom, human worth, and self-destiny.

We reject the notion that American gun owners must accept any lesser amount of freedom in order to be accepted among the international community. Our Founding Fathers long ago rejected that notion and forged our great nation on the principle of freedom for the individual citizen - not for the government.

Mr. Chairman, those working on this treaty have asked us to trust them ... but they've proven to be unworthy of that trust.

We are told "Trust us; an ATT will not ban possession of any civilian firearms." Yet, the

proposals and statements presented to date have argued exactly the opposite, and - perhaps most importantly - proposals to ban civilian firearms ownership have not been rejected.

We are told "Trust us; an ATT will not interfere with state domestic regulation of firearms." Yet, there are constant calls for exactly such measures.

We are told "Trust us; an ATT will only affect the illegal trade in firearms." But then we're told that in order to control the illegal trade, all states must control the legal firearms trade.

We are told, "Trust us; an ATT will not require registration of civilian firearms." Yet, there are numerous calls for record-keeping, and firearms tracking from production to eventual destruction. That's nothing more than gun registration by a different name.

We are told, "Trust us; an ATT will not create a new international bureaucracy." Well, that's exactly what is now being proposed -- with a tongue-in-cheek assurance that it will just be a SMALL bureaucracy.

We are told, "Trust us; an ATT will not interfere with the lawful international commerce in civilian firearms." But a manufacturer of civilian shotguns would have to comply with the same regulatory process as a manufacturer of military attack helicopters.

We are told, "Trust us; an ATT will not interfere with a hunter or sport shooter travelling internationally with firearms." However, he would have to get a so-called "transit permit" merely to change airports for a connecting flight.

Unfortunately, my limited time today prevents me from providing greater detail on each of our objections. I can assure you, however, that each is based on American law, as well as the fundamental rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

are woven throughout the proposed ATT. That being the case, however, there is only one solution to this problem: the complete removal of civilian firearms from the scope of any ATT. I will repeat that point as it is critical and not subject to negotiation - civilian firearms must not be part of any ATT. On this there can be no compromise, as American gun owners will never surrender their Second Amendment freedom.

It is also regrettable to find such intense focus on record-keeping, oversight, inspections, supervision, tracking, tracing, surveillance, marking, documentation, verification, paper trails and data banks, new global agencies and data centers. Nowhere do we find a thought about respecting anyone's right of self-defense, privacy, property, due process, or observing personal freedoms of any kind.

Mr. Chairman, I'd be remiss if I didn't also discuss the politics of an ATT. For the United States to be a party to an ATT, it must be ratified by a two-thirds vote of the U.S. Senate. Some do not realize that under the U.S. Constitution, the ultimate treaty power is not the President's power to negotiate and sign treaties; it is the Senate's power to approve them.

To that end, it's important for the Preparatory Committee to understand that the proposed ATT is already strongly opposed in the Senate - the very body that must approve it by a two-thirds majority. There is a letter addressed to President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton that is currently being circulated for the signatures of Senators who oppose the ATT. Once complete, this letter will demonstrate that the proposed ATT will not pass the U.S. Senate.

So there is extremely strong resistance to the ATT in the United States, even before the treaty is tabled. We are not aware of any precedent for this - rejecting a proposed treaty before it's even submitted for consideration - but it speaks to the level of opposition. The proposed ATT has become more than just controversial, as the Internet is awash with articles and messages calling for its rejection. And those messages are all based on the same objection - infringement on the constitutional freedom of American gun owners.

The cornerstone of our freedom is the Second Amendment. Neither the United Nations, nor any other foreign influence, has the authority to meddle with the freedoms guaranteed by our Bill of Rights, endowed by our Creator, and due to all humankind.

Therefore, the NRA will fight with all of its strength to oppose any ATT that includes civilian firearms within its scope.

I hope someday a President has enough common sense to boycott the UN unless they stop passing pieces of paper that challenge the sovereignty of a nation. I mean it isn't just the United States. Their "resolutions" challenge the sovereignty of any nation's laws.

As said, I don't care what piece of paper they pass, the Second Amendment is guarunteed by our Constitution, no legislative body except 2/3 of the states in the US have the right to take it away.

And even at that, the right to defend oneself with a weapon is a human right that nobody should have to tell us we do or don't have.

Hogger, I hope so too. Maybe Rand Paul would introduce legislation that would resign us from the UN. That group has opposed the U.S. at every turn. I propose we tell the rest of the world to go to hell and deal only with our true allies; the english speaking nations of the british commonwealth and Israel.

That said, it is a fact of law that an international treaty to which we are part, trumps any federal, state, and local law; and yes even the constitution. A very good reason not to do treaties.

That said, it is a fact of law that an international treaty to which we are part, trumps any federal, state, and local law; and yes even the constitution. A very good reason not to do treaties.

Click to expand...

I know BHO thinks he's a king, and that like Peter Pan, whatever he wishes will magically occur; but such is not the case.

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, Article IV, paragraph 2, reads as follows:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the Supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”

It's a slippery slope and has been long debated by minds sharper than mine.

Pulled this off a legal forum - the main defense to our Constitution is the case of Reid v. Covert, and the ruling states that no treaty can trump the Constitution:

........................................

In the Reid v. Covert case, it was an executive agreement (not a
treaty) between the United States and Great Britain that was in
question. However, in Part II, we find:
“MR. JUSTICE BLACK announced the judgment of the Court and
delivered an opinion, in which THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE
DOUGLAS, and MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN join.”

Significant excerpts include:
“At the time of Mrs. Covert's alleged offense, an executive agreement
was in effect between the United States and Great Britain which
permitted United States' military courts to exercise exclusive
jurisdiction over offenses committed in Great Britain by American
servicemen or their dependents.”

“It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who
created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for
the Bill of Rights -- let alone alien to our entire constitutional history
and tradition -- to construe Article VI as permitting the United States
to exercise power under an international agreement without
observing constitutional prohibitions. ... In effect, such construction
would permit amendment of that document in a manner not
sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were
designed to apply to all branches of the National Government, and
they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and the
Senate combined.”

“There is nothing new or unique about what we say here. This Court
has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the
Constitution over a treaty. ... For example, in Geofroy v. Riggs, 133
U.S. 258, 267, it declared: The treaty power, as expressed in the
Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which
are found in that instrument against the action of the government or
of its departments, and those arising from the nature of the
government itself and of that of the States. It would not be
contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution
forbids, or a change in the character of the [p*18] government, or in
that of one of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory
of the latter, without its consent.”

“This Court has also repeatedly taken the position that an Act of
Congress, which must comply with the Constitution, is on a full parity
with a treaty, and that, when a statute which is subsequent in time is
inconsistent with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict renders
the treaty null. ... It would be completely anomalous to say that a
treaty need not comply with the Constitution when such an
agreement can be overridden by a statute that must conform to that
instrument.”

I know BHO thinks he's a king, and that like Peter Pan, whatever he wishes will magically occur; but such is not the case.

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, Article IV, paragraph 2, reads as follows:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the Supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”

It's a slippery slope and has been long debated by minds sharper than mine.

Pulled this off a legal forum - the main defense to our Constitution is the case of Reid v. Covert, and the ruling states that no treaty can trump the Constitution:

........................................

In the Reid v. Covert case, it was an executive agreement (not a
treaty) between the United States and Great Britain that was in
question. However, in Part II, we find:
“MR. JUSTICE BLACK announced the judgment of the Court and
delivered an opinion, in which THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE
DOUGLAS, and MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN join.”

Significant excerpts include:
“At the time of Mrs. Covert's alleged offense, an executive agreement
was in effect between the United States and Great Britain which
permitted United States' military courts to exercise exclusive
jurisdiction over offenses committed in Great Britain by American
servicemen or their dependents.”

“It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who
created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for
the Bill of Rights -- let alone alien to our entire constitutional history
and tradition -- to construe Article VI as permitting the United States
to exercise power under an international agreement without
observing constitutional prohibitions. ... In effect, such construction
would permit amendment of that document in a manner not
sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were
designed to apply to all branches of the National Government, and
they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and the
Senate combined.”

“There is nothing new or unique about what we say here. This Court
has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the
Constitution over a treaty. ... For example, in Geofroy v. Riggs, 133
U.S. 258, 267, it declared: The treaty power, as expressed in the
Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which
are found in that instrument against the action of the government or
of its departments, and those arising from the nature of the
government itself and of that of the States. It would not be
contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution
forbids, or a change in the character of the [p*18] government, or in
that of one of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory
of the latter, without its consent.”

“This Court has also repeatedly taken the position that an Act of
Congress, which must comply with the Constitution, is on a full parity
with a treaty, and that, when a statute which is subsequent in time is
inconsistent with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict renders
the treaty null. ... It would be completely anomalous to say that a
treaty need not comply with the Constitution when such an
agreement can be overridden by a statute that must conform to that
instrument.”

Click to expand...

Thanks Juker, that gives us some ammo, no pun intended. However I have seen cases cited before where an international treaty did seem to trump federal law, at least in international courts of law. I guess it comes down to a treaty or law being only as good as the willingness of affected parties to abide by it.

Please, I don't want anyone getting mad at me, but......... I believe in the, NRA, but I don't believe in, La Pierre. He talks out of both sides of his face. And he's held his seat to long. He has a multi-million dollar home, a Rolls Royce, and numorus hunting trips to Africa for him and his wife. As far as his wording about, Civilian Firearms,..... I don't see anything in the, 2nd. Amendment, that says we can only have Civilian Arms. Actually, it says; ''To form a more perfect militia. Hmmmmmm. To me that means we can have the type firearm we choose to do the job that needs doing. To hell with the, UN.
JMO.